zandronum-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get map variable

get_map_var

Reads a map-scope ACS variable by name from any loaded module, providing current values for scripts, debugging, or tooling.

Instructions

Read a map-scope ACS variable by name (searched across loaded modules).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_map_var"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`instance`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it is a read operation (safe, non-destructive) and mentions cross-module search, but lacks details on return format, error handling (e.g., variable not found), performance implications, or permissions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no filler. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter or behavioral hints without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is minimal. It covers purpose but leaves out usage guidelines, parameter semantics, return behavior, and error scenarios. An agent would need to infer or experiment to use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it provides no explanation for the 'name' parameter (e.g., format, case sensitivity) or the 'instance' parameter (e.g., meaning, default behavior). The description adds zero value beyond the schema's raw type and requirement constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'map-scope ACS variable', adding the search scope 'searched across loaded modules'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_acs_var' (which likely handles other scopes) and 'set_map_var' (write operation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_acs_var', 'list_acs_vars', or 'find_acs_symbol'. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or how this tool fits in a workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.